Text Size

-

+

reset

One case challenges whether people can get subsidies for health insurance in states that don’t run their own insurance exchanges. Another puts forth a new legal argument against the constitutionality of the individual and employer mandates. And the third argues that the law isn’t valid because it originated in the Senate, and the Constitution says tax legislation needs to start in the House.

There’s also a barrage of lawsuits against the administration’s contraception coverage requirement, which wouldn’t derail the overall legislation but would keep the public focused on a controversial aspect of the law.

The Supreme Court clearly made its voice heard on the health law. If the court wanted to get rid of the legislation in June, it certainly had its chance. But the suits — particularly the one about the subsidies — pose legal questions that the courts will have to resolve one way or another.

And while the lawyers fight it out, the cases continue to be political irritants and a way to keep the antagonism to the law burning hot.

One suit, brought by Oklahoma, challenges a key element of the Affordable Care Act: subsidies that will help lower- and middle-class families afford insurance in the new state-based health marketplaces known as exchanges.

The subsidies, in the form of tax credits, are available only through these exchanges. But the law was based on the assumption that most states would run the exchanges with the federal government as a backup. Yet at this point, only 13 states and Washington seem likely to run their own exchanges, although a few undecided states could tip that way. The rest will either let the feds run them or will create so-called partnership exchanges with the Department Health and Human Services and the states divvying up responsibilities.

Oklahoma — building its case on an argument made by the Cato Institute and Case Western Reserve University Law professor Jonathan Adler — argues that the subsidies can be administered only through the state exchanges, not federal ones.

The interpretation of the Internal Revenue Service is that the subsidies can flow under the law. But Oklahoma, as the Washington Times put it in a recent editorial, “is calling the taxman’s bluff.”

Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, says the IRS doesn’t have any ground to stand on. In an email, he said HHS invented the partnership model “out of thin air” and that the law doesn’t allow for the subsidies in either federal model — partnership or wholly federal.

“The Act does not authorize tax credits, or cost-sharing subsidies, or penalties against employers, in a state with a ‘partnership’ Exchange. In addition, a ‘partnership’ Exchange also makes thousands of additional state residents exempt from the individual mandate,” Cannon added.

The health law exempts people from the individual mandate to have insurance if it’s not affordable — with “affordability” defined by the statute. Without the subsidies, it would be unaffordable for a lot more people.

Enough already!!! We heard for years Obamacare which was created by the conservative Heritage foundation, proposed by Dole & Newt, Implemented by a Republ Romney of Mass was unconstitutional. Well the Supreme Court upheld it, the Republican Presidential candidate who created Obamacare was the creator of Romenycare so get over it.

Health insurance rates have gone up 1000% the last decade we need to work together. Companies move jobs overseas because their labor costs include health insurance which includes the cost of all the ER free loaders.

Obamacare is a big joke... your first clue was that the big insurance companies and pharmaceuticals did NOT oppose it. Get it..WAKE THE HELL up... there are tons of people esp single moms, etc that cannot afford to go to work right now, add this bennie in and it will only increase the government dependent people that are way out of hand now... to get something for doing nothing is outrage not to mention socialist.

So what does this have to do with Petraeus anyway? I thought all politico and the Obama admin wanted to talk about was the Petraeus affair. I mean we dont need to know about the economy, jobs, what really happened at Benghazi... Odumbocare.. come thats all water under the bridge, cant we at least come to our senses and forget all these small trifling matters and get on with all the juicy details of Gen/ Petraeus affair. I mean after all this is the NEW AMERICA, right???

GOP and their conservative allies still fighting, hoping to disrupt things! This people are destroyers and they cannot outlive their negatives. That is how their brain works!

RYAN AGAIN, still trashing around? And Gingrich, Trump and all the rest of these losers.

And now Texas is talking secession!

LET THEM GO. I HOPE THEY TAKE KARL ROVE WITH THEM. Who needs Texas with its cowboy capitalism and all the other negatives? THE EXTREME RIGHT HAS YET TO LEARN THE LESSON OF THIS ELECTION. They want to talk Bengazzi instead of pressing and most urgent matters of state. For example, on the scandal issue, they are looking for someone else to blame (FBI, Obama, etc,) instead of the person who committed the adultery. Amazing! In the mean time, very important and urgent matters are ignored by these negatively-driven folks. This is no way to grieve their spectacular lost!!! With this kind of attitude, things can only get worse for them in the future--especially given the demographic they need to win. They are narcissists and destructive. Nothing constructive from these folks! For them, it is about intimidation, aggression, "God and country" they don't obey or follow, and phony "patriots." When they don't get their way, they try to intimidate or take out their anger on others.